<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>QuantumHeat.org</title>
		<description>Discuss QuantumHeat.org</description>
		<link>http://www.quantumheat.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 19:18:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>clovis ray says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-772</link>
			<description><![CDATA[hi, guys just signing in ,and keeping an eye on you :lol:]]></description>
			<dc:creator>clovis ray</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-772</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-546</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think the two spikes you are seeing correspond to power drops. When the power is turned down, the power in drops much faster than the temperature of the cell does. The result is that the excess power calculation shows large positive till the temperatures settle.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 04:30:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-546</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-545</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If I may correct myself -- both spikes are preceded by endothermic intervals, if the graph for P_xs is taken at face value. But I'm led to wonder -- shouldn't P_xs average to zero, rather than -2, as it currently is, assuming this is the real baseline and the behavior of the cell is not actually endothermic during these intervals?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 04:27:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-545</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-544</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Eric Try doing an alt-Print Screen and pasting the screen as an image. It's a bit clunky, but that will include the date in the picture.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 04:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-544</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-543</link>
			<description><![CDATA[On an only tangentially related topic -- I note that when you look at a 15 minute average sample rate over the period 11/18/2012 08:15:46 to 11/18/2012 20:15:46, there are two large spikes in P_xs. The second is preceded by an endothermic interval and the other is not. In this regard the data viewer does not include the configuration for the graph in the URL; it is using HTTP POST rather than HTTP GET. This makes the URLs prettier, but it means that you cannot copy and paste the URL for a graph into an email or a comment. Perhaps your developers will consider putting this information in the URL to facilitate sharing graphs of the data.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 04:22:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-543</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ivone M. FitzGerald says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-512</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The detail if maintained will destroy the sceptics should excess heat be demonstrated later.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ivone M. FitzGerald</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:02:09 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-512</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-510</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Wire impedance seems normal according to the chart at pdf page 53 here, linked on a comment some time back (I don't remember who did it, sorry). See the line corresponding to the 50% copper-nickel alloy: http://www.nist.gov/data/PDFfiles/jpcrd221.pdf The impedance of such alloy is expected to drop a bit, then rise again with increasing temperatures. My educated guess is that once an active Celani wire can't load any more hydrogen, it starts acting (electrically speaking) as a normal alloy and therefore has its electrical resistance slightly increasing proportionally with temperature (after a brief dip). By attempting loading it at a higher pressure (starting at ~7.5 bar), R/Ro should further semi-permanentl y decrease until the wire can't take any more hydrogen. In his ICCF17 presentation it appears Celani shows mostly wires at their first loading attempt. Optimally pre-loaded ones probably behave like MFMP's.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:14:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-510</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-509</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'd like to see an updated version of the graphs like the the ones I saw in the article "Is i or isn't it" http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/136-is-it-or-isn-t-it. Other ideas: Wrap the glass tube with some turns of tin foil (not wrinkled) and redo the calibration+exp erimental run. See if this help to reduce the t_glassout spread. The t_glassout spread is very unfortunate since that should depend ONLY ON P_IN an not on the temperature/emi sson spectrum of the wire.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:40:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-509</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
